-1-

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7075
WP No. 102571 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.102571 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:

SMT. APSANA @ SARIKA KHAN

W/O SIDDIQUE KHAN,
REPTED, BY GPA HOLDER,
BY SHRI SIDDIQUE KHAN S/O MOHAMMAD KHAN,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KODIBAG, KARWAR,
KARWAR TALUK,
DIST. KARWAR-581303.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI DATTATRAYA TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUES,
VIDHANSOUDHA, M.S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA BUILDING,
KARWAR-581301, COURT ROAD,
DIST. KARWAR.

3. THE TAHASILDAR,
MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
COURT ROAD, KARWAR-581301,
DIST. KARWAR.

4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,

OFFICE OF THE LAND RECORDS,
KARWAR-581301, DIST. KARWAR.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7075
WP No. 102571 of 2024

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS BY ISSUING THE DIRECTIONS TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN
PURSUANCE OF REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 14-2-2022 AND TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE
ENDORSEMENT/LETTER DATED 27.03.2024 BEARING
[Link]/DURSTI./VIVA/1385/2023-24 WHICH IS ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE
LETTER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.02.2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-E
WHICH IS ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS, KARWAR, VIZ., RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.,.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’

GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court questioning the

endorsement issued by respondent No.3 by letter dated

27.03.2024 vide Annexure-D and the endorsement dated

15.02.2024 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-E,

wherein the mutation entries sought to be challenged in the

revenue records were rejected by respondents No.3 and 4.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she being a

permanent resident of Karwar, is absolute owner of the

property bearing [Link].20A/1A measuring 01 gunta 01

anna, situated at Kodibag village, Baad Circle, Sarvodaya

Nagar, Parisara Karwar. Originally the property stood in the

name of father of the seller by name Shri Sheikh Ismail

-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7075
WP No. 102571 of 2024

Sheikh Usman. The said Ismail Sheikh Usman gifted the

scheduled property to Usman Ismail Shaikh and thereafter

the property came to be sold to the petitioner by way of a

registered sale deed dated 14.02.2021. Admittedly, the

petitioner purchased the property by virtue of a registered

sale deed from its seller. The copy of the sale deed is also

produced along with this petition. Pursuant to the purchase

of the property, petitioner has also paid tax to the municipal

authorities. The same has been accepted.

3. This being the state of affairs, petitioner made an

application to respondent No.3 Tassildar, Karwar, to enter

her name in the property extract and other revenue records.

But unfortunately, respondent No.3 failed to exercise his

power and refused to enter the name of the petitioner in the

revenue records and issued an endorsement dated

27.03.2024 which is produced at Annexure-D. Thereafter,

petitioner filed an application before respondent No.4,

Assistant Director of Land Records under RTI Act, to

ascertain as to why the mutation entries have not been

changed in the name of petitioner, for which it was replied

-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7075
WP No. 102571 of 2024

that there is a difference in the name of the seller and

purchaser in the property extract previously and hence the

names were not changed. Thereafter, the petitioner applied

for the property extract and came to know that the name of

the petitioner is not at all mentioned in the property extract.

Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this

Court for the inaction of respondents No.3 and 4 for not

adhering to its responsible duty of changing the mutation

entries as required under law, despite the registered sale

deed produced before him. It is the contention of learned

counsel for the petitioner that once the document registered

in accordance with law of the Registration Act and the Stamp

Act is produced before the concerned authority, i.e.,

respondent No.3, Tahasildar is duty bound to enter the name

of the registered owner as per the documents produced

before him and having made such a request and not

adhering to the request, respondent No.3 Tahasildar has

clearly deviated from the said legal principles and the

provisions of the Act. Therefore, the same is illegal, invalid

and is liable to be set aside.

-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7075
WP No. 102571 of 2024

4. It is also stated that the respondents have blindly

issued an endorsement that the names do not tally, which is

also not forthcoming and no proper documents have been

produced or substantiated by the respondent authorities.

Hence the order being erroneous, the petitioner is before this

Court seeking to quash the endorsement issued by

respondent No.3 and for a direction to enter the name of the

petitioner in the revenue records.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP representing the State

sustains the order of the respondent authorities, i.e., the

Tahasildar by contending that after enquiry the Tahasildar

has come to know that there is a difference in the name of

the buyer and seller. She contends that since there is a

difference in the property extract and the sale deed, the

same is sustainable and it is well within the powers of the

authority to reject when there is a difference in the name

which is not tallying with the documents produced by the

petitioner.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner, and learned HCGP for the state, the point that
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7075
WP No. 102571 of 2024

requires for consideration is whether the respondent No.3

Tahasildar has the power to reject the entry of mutation

when a registered document in accordance with law is

presented for change of mutation entries.

7. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the

provisions of section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964, which reads as under:

128. Acquisitions of rights to be reported.—

(1) Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship,
inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise, any right as holder, occupant, owner,
mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of
the rent or revenue thereof, shall report orally or in
writing his acquisition of such right to the prescribed
officer of the village within three months from the date
of such acquisition, and the said officer shall at once
give a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the
report to the person making it:

Provided that xxx xxxx xxxx…….

Provided further that any person acquiring a right

by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted
form the obligation to report to the prescribed officer:

8. According to the above said section 128 of the

Act, there is a duty cast upon any person who acquires

succession, ownership or right on the property to make an

application to the prescribed officer within three months from

-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7075
WP No. 102571 of 2024

the date of such acquisition and the said officer shall at once

give written acknowledgement to the said person. But the

second proviso to the section which is extracted hereinabove

exempts the obligation to report to the prescribed officer.

When there is any document which is a registered document

produced by the person to the prescribed officer, in the

sense there is no requirement for the person to make an

application or report to the prescribed officer when there is a

registered document as required under law, completing all

formalities of the requirement of registration under the

Registration Act as it becomes a duty incumbent upon the

officer to register the name of the person who has acquired

the ownership on the basis of the document which is

forwarded by the prescribed officer to the concerned revenue

authority.

9. It is also relevant to extract sub section (4) of

section 128 of the Act, which reads as under:

(4) No document by virtue of which any person

acquires a right in any land as holder, occupant, owner,
mortgagee, landlord or tenant or assignee of the rent or
revenue thereunder, shall be registered under the
Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 12 of 1908),
unless the person liable to pay the registration fee also
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7075
WP No. 102571 of 2024

pays to the registering authority such fees as may be

prescribed for making the necessary entries in the
record of rights and registers referred to in section 129;
and on the registration of such a document, the
registering authority shall make a report of the
acquisition of the right to the prescribed officer.

10. This sub section very clearly states that once

there is a registered document presented before any

authority, the registration of such document shall be

reported to the prescribed officer, who is duty bound to

make the entry in the revenue records/mutation records with

regard to change of name as per the document which is

forwarded to him.

11. In the present case on hand, two situations have

arisen. One is, the petitioner has made an application to the

Tahasildar. Though application is made, the Tahasildar has

refused to make an entry on the ground that there is a

difference in the name in the property extract, which

however, is not substantiated or convincing. Secondly, even

if the petitioner, for the sake of argument, had not made any

application, the authority by themselves are duty bound to

-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7075
WP No. 102571 of 2024

report the same to the prescribed officer of the revenue

department to change the name in the mutation entries.

12. It is also relevant to note that there is no rival

claim or any third party claims are made before the

Tahasildar or the revenue authorities with regard to there

being any fraud or mischief played with regard to the change

of entries or the registered document produced before the

prescribed officer/authority. Under the circumstances, the

impugned order passed by the Tahasildar does not prescribe

to the required provisions of the Act and the duty cast upon

the officer. The same is erroneous and is liable to be

quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order passed by respondent No.3

Tahasildar dated the 27.03.2024, is hereby quashed.

iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.3

to enter the name of the petitioner by virtue of the

registered sale deed produced dated 14.02.2021 and make

- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7075
WP No. 102571 of 2024

such entries in the revenue records by incorporating the

name of the petitioner.

iv) The entry shall be incorporated by respondent

No.3 Tahasildar, within a period of two months from the date

of receipt of a copy of the order.

Sd/-
JUDGE

MRK
CT:BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34